I accept. I will refute my opponent's arguments, since he has the sole BoP.

==Rebuttal 1: None of my opponent's arguments are in any way true or valid==

"They built houses on land without council permission," - Opponent

They had absolutely no laws or government nearby (at least none mentioned in the story), so since it was a place where barely anyone lived and thus there was no government, they did not need council permission. Even then, pigs are animals, thus they are less likely to need to adhere to the laws.

"They murdered an innocent wolf" - Opponent

The wolf was obviously not innocent. He was planning to hunt down all three of the pigs and eat them, meaning the wolf was obviously not innocent. Even then, however, murder would not be crime, thus it wouldn't be murder, by definition, as there was no government.

"and they disrepected the wolf by eating it for supper." - Opponent

To disrespect a person (in this case, an animal) is not a crime, even in places where there is a strict government. Also, humans eat animals all the time, thus disproving its criminality. Again, due to the fact that there isn't even a government in the area, it cannot be a crime.

Even so, the wolf was planning to eat them all for supper, which means that it contradicts my opponent's arguments in a way.

Plus, there are different versions. The wolf, who was eaten by the third pig, ate the other two pigs in one version, and in another version all three survive without eating the wolf, whereas the wolf only runs away without being killed, which contradicts my opponent's second statement. [1]

==Contention 1: No Government==

This argument has been tied into the rebuttal - no government and laws means no crimes.

==Conclusion==

I have proven all my opponent's points wrong and affirmed my stance. My opponent has not met the BoP.

<< Vote: tejretics | Decision: 6 points to Con [7-point system]>>
==~<<Reason for Decision>>~==
Conduct to Con because of Pro's FF. Con refuted *all* of Pro's arguments, by properly establishing how the "murder" was justified as self-defense, and how the lack of government means anarchy, and, thus, individual autonomy unlimited by legal enforcement and jurisdiction. Hence Pro's need for Council approval argument falls flat, as does the murder and eating of the wolf, being that without government and no set system of laws, the pigs actions are not criminal in nature. Pro neither rebutted nor refuted these contentions. Pro's own sole contention was weakly framed and easily refuted by Con. Pro merely rephrased their initial contention from R1 *without* providing *ANY* rebuttals or refutes whatsoever. The resolution was successfully and effectively negated by Con's arguments based on legal entitlement and moral differentiation; Con cleverly drew analogies from the story and the current justice system to politically prove how the three little pigs were *not* criminals. Pro did *not* fulfill their BoP, and even under a shared BoP Con managed to successfully refute *all* Pro's claims. Con used the only sources in the debate.
<< RFD given above | Tejretics >>

Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited the second round, which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. For this, Pro loses conduct points. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. Arguments - Con. Pro presented an argument around the claims that they built on land without permission, murdered the wolf, and then ate the wolf. Con was able to successfully challenge each point based solely on the fact that there was no government within that story. Hence Pro's need for Council approval argument falls flat, as does the murder and eating of the wolf, being that without government and no set system of laws, the pigs actions are not criminal in nature. Pro never rebutted these challenges, and chose to instead just repeat his arguments from R1. For this, Con wins arguments, as he was left standing unchallenged and successfully defeated Pro's arguments. Sources - Con. Pro did not utilize sources in this debate whereas Con did.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.